Text Size

Meeks got a $40,000 loan from Queens businessman Edul Ahmad in 2007, but he failed to publicly disclose it - as required under House rules and federal law - until 2010.

Ahmad pled guilty in October in an unrelated $14 million mortgage fraud case.

Meeks said the loan from Ahmad was a normal business transaction, with full documentation and a set rate of payments and interest.

However, Meeks could not produce any records to support his claim, and Ahmad said he made the loan to the New York Democrat without interest, potentially an improper gift to a sitting lawmaker.

Meeks repaid the loan in 2010 following news reports on the controversy

The Ethics Committee has been considering whether to conduct a formal probe into the Meeks matter case but Ahmad has refused to cooperate with the panel’s preliminary review, according to a statement released by Reps. Jo Bonner (R-Ala.) and Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), the chairman and ranking member, on Thursday.

“Representative Meeks has consistently represented that the loan was memorialized in writing and had a set repayment schedule and rate of interest, but that he cannot produce the loan document now because he has misplaced it. Representative Meeks repaid the loan in June 2010, and stated that he ultimately paid an interest rate of 12.5%,” Bonner and Sanchez said in their joint statement.

Bonner and Sanchez added: “While counsel to Mr. Ahmad has represented that there was no loan document signed by Representative Meeks and no fixed interest rate, the Committee staff has been unable to confirm his allegation due to the inability to interview Mr. Ahmad. Mr. Ahmad has pleaded guilty to fraud charges in an unrelated federal criminal case. Mr. Ahmad’s attorney has informed Committee staff that Mr. Ahmad would decline any request for a voluntary interview with the Committee, and, if subpoenaed, Mr. Ahmad would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights unless the Committee gave him immunity from criminal prosecution.”

Bonner and Sanchez said it that “it would be unreasonable for the Committee to conclude, on the basis of his testimony alone, that Representative Meeks had been untruthful to the Committee in his sworn statement that such a document had accompanied the loan.”

“I am pleased with the Ethics Committee’s decision, and I am glad that this matter is now closed,” Meeks said in a statement. “With this matter behind me, and much work yet to be done, I am looking forward to serving my constituents with continued commitment and vigor on the many critical issues that face our district and our nation.”

Readers' Comments (2)

Why would a criminal want immunity from the Ethics Committee if nothing criminal occurred between him and Congressman Meeks? This has got to be one of the low points in the history of the House Ethics Committee.

I thank the Congress man from New York for his deligent work on the Maginsky Act, one where we normalize our trade relations with Russia, subject to the WTO rules and procedures, something long overdue, but keep the conversation going, on Human Rights, and the debate on the chess board at the UNSC where it belongs. An Angel earns their wings, and this congressman earned his FP badge.